Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Korea Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: ROKN Patrol Corvette sucken by DPRK torpedo boat
YelliChink    3/26/2010 12:10:07 PM
Just happened 2150 Korean local time. Chinese reports say that it was DPRK torpedo boat. The ROKN corvette sunk is probably a 1200t PCC. I can't read Korean so I am not sure which one exactly. At this moment, 59 out of 104 crew have been saved so far. Best wishes to the still missing ones and condolence to families of lost sailors.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SantaClaws       4/27/2010 4:55:18 PM
I don't believe that the Americans have bungled up anything. It is, as it should be, up to the South Koreans what should be done as it is their ship and they are the ones to exact the heaviest toll if they decide to go to war.
 
I think we also need to consider that starving them out could be a real possibility. We did it to the Russians during the Cold War and the results were far better than us doing a preemptive strike to end it once and for all. It's easy to blow the trumpets of war when it is not your family at risk and when you're not leading soldiers into battle.
 
I do hope that the S Koreans, as well as our own administration, wake up and realize that their neighbor to the North has no intentions of unifying the two Koreas and stop with the hand outs. Some of you will probably argue we have a right to defend their people and free them from tyranny and starvation. Well, we didn't do that to them. Their government did. And if they're brainwashed enough to believe their government has the best interests at heart, then ignorance is bliss.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2010 6:14:26 PM

Everyone is dancing around the tiger and does not want to confront it.

 

The fact is that if it were just the DPRK, we would swat them and be done.

 

What everyone guesses at, is this question...."Is there PRC bandit involvement?"

 

Remember The Pueblo Lesson.

 


 

The object lesson and it is one, is even if this opportunity attack came as a surprise to the nation sponsor of the stooge regime, we must assume that the nation sponsor will exploit the situation for its own ends.

 

The American incompetents, who bungled the Pueblo Incident, like the current American incompetents who handle the Cheonan Incident, fail to measure what the cost of inaction means. An enemy sees weakness as a response to an act of his (stooge's) aggression, he will repeat his act of (stooge's) aggression and may escalate it.

 

To that end, some negative feedback is necessary for BEIJING to ponder, never mind just Pyongyong. 


   



 

I trust that what is at stake here is very very clear?

H



So let me understand, re-starting the Korean War in 1968 is what you advocate? I suppose then that you think some form of military action now, which could have the same affect while we are also similarly engaged to capacity, is the right thing to do? If that isn't what you are saying be clear so as to avoid an unecessary back and forth. Otherwise, if you are saying that, then have you considered the consequences both logistic, economic and political? Also, how does something sinking Cheonan have anything to do with American incompetence or Chinese villainy?
 
The problem is you are drawing some very extreme conclusions from an event that is not representative of the example you cited which other than cut and paste a description of the event you haven't explained in a way that links the events. You should summarize your points and then describe them in a way that communicates logically how you arrived at your conclusions so that the rest of us can follow your thinking whether or not we agree.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/27/2010 6:58:11 PM
Technically speaking, you can't restart a war that hasn't really ended.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2010 7:00:50 PM

Technically speaking, you can't restart a war that hasn't really ended.


Of course. But we are talking practically here. What it seems Hamilcar is suggesting isn't practical.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/27/2010 7:00:54 PM

Technically speaking, you can't restart a war that hasn't really ended.


Of course. But we are talking practically here. What it seems Hamilcar is suggesting isn't practical.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    The problem is....   4/27/2010 11:54:08 PM




Everyone is dancing around the tiger and does not want to confront it.



 



The fact is that if it were just the DPRK, we would swat them and be done.



 



What everyone guesses at, is this question...."Is there PRC bandit involvement?"



 



Remember The Pueblo Lesson.



 






 



The object lesson and it is one, is even if this opportunity attack came as a surprise to the nation sponsor of the stooge regime, we must assume that the nation sponsor will exploit the situation for its own ends.



 



The American incompetents, who bungled the Pueblo Incident, like the current American incompetents who handle the Cheonan Incident, fail to measure what the cost of inaction means. An enemy sees weakness as a response to an act of his (stooge's) aggression, he will repeat his act of (stooge's) aggression and may escalate it.



 



To that end, some negative feedback is necessary for BEIJING to ponder, never mind just Pyongyong. 






   









 



I trust that what is at stake here is very very clear?





H









So let me understand, re-starting the Korean War in 1968 is what you advocate? I suppose then that you think some form of military action now, which could have the same affect while we are also similarly engaged to capacity, is the right thing to do? If that isn't what you are saying be clear so as to avoid an unecessary back and forth. Otherwise, if you are saying that, then have you considered the consequences both logistic, economic and political? Also, how does something sinking Cheonan have anything to do with American incompetence or Chinese villainy?

 

The problem is you are drawing some very extreme conclusions from an event that is not representative of the example you cited which other than cut and paste a description of the event you haven't explained in a way that links the events. You should summarize your points and then describe them in a way that communicates logically how you arrived at your conclusions so that the rest of us can follow your thinking whether or not we agree.

 

-DA



that you are inserting your own bias and narrow erroneous vision (and faith in higher authority) into what I said. You did and do not understand what I said, and hence your comments are not even relevant to what I said.
 
For the benefit of others who follow this, the thesis restated:
 
1. The DPRK only moves as far as they dare. The PRC bandits, not the US, not the RoKs, are the foreign influence DPRK limiters here.
2. Past acts of state-sponsored stooge state piracy are applicable lessons to the Cheonan Incident-especially those which involve incidents that test US political/military (in)competence.
3. Past is therefore prologue, or to put it in simple English, if you don't learn from your past stupid mistakes, you repeat the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again.    
   
Is that clear?
 
H.   
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       4/28/2010 1:24:42 AM
But the Cheonan and the Pueblo are hardly the same incident.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       4/28/2010 2:00:17 AM

1968 North Korean Attempt To Assassinate the ROK President

[The Dawn of Modern Korea] Trying to Bring the House Down

By Andrei Lankov

On Jan. 16, 1968, a bus left a top secret North Korean military base in Hwanghae Province. The passengers were officers of the elite ?Unit 124,? young and fit soldiers in their mid-20s. That evening they departed for a special mission in Seoul.

Their morale was high: the soldiers believed that their operation would hasten the collapse of the ?puppet regime? in the South. They were given the password for passing through the DMZ on their way back, but they understood: the chance they would ever get to use the password was close to zero. Theirs was a mission of no return. The 31 North Korean commandos were supposed to attack the Blue House, the official residence of the South Korean presidents.


At some point in 1966 the North Korean leaders (in all probability, Kim Il-sung himself) decided that the South was ripe for a Vietnamese-style revolution. This was a gross misjudgement, but for a few years Pyongyang acted in accordance with this assumption. Thousands of Koreans on both sides of the DMZ paid with their lives for this miscalculation.


?Unit 124? was trained for guerrilla and terrorist activities in the South. The unit included a number of Southerners who had moved to the North, with their parents, prior to or during the Korean War. This is yet another reminder that the entire Korean conflict was essentially a civil war where Koreans fought Koreans.
 
===================================================
You do not put it into historic context. 
 
 

Drawing on thousands of pages of recently declassified documents from President Lyndon Johnson's administration, along with dozens of interviews with those involved, Mitchell Lerner provides the most complete and accurate account of the Pueblo incident yet available. He weaves on a grand scale a dramatic story of international relations, presidential politics, covert intelligence, capture on the high seas, and secret negotiations. At the same time, he highlights the personal struggles of the Pueblo's crew--through capture, imprisonment, indoctrination, torture, and release--and the still smoldering controversy over Commander Bucher's actions. In fact, Bucher emerges here for the first time as the truly steadfast hero his men have always considered him to be.

More than an account of misadventure, The Pueblo Incident is an indictment of America's Cold War mentality. Lerner argues that had U.S. policymakers regarded the North Koreans as people with a national agenda, rather than as serving a global Communist conspiracy, they might have avoided the crisis or resolved it more effectively. He also addresses such unanswered questions as what the Pueblo's mission exactly was, why the ship had no military support, and how damaging the intelligence loss was to national security.

With North Korea still seen as a rogue state by some policymakers, The Pueblo Incident provides key insights into the domestic imperatives behind that country's foreign relations. It astutely assesses the place of gunboat diplomacy in the modern world and is vital for understanding American foreign policy failures in the Cold War.

 H.
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Hamilcar   4/28/2010 7:54:41 AM
Pueblo and Cheonan are not the same thing. Also, none of what happened in anyway supports your assertion of American incompetence in any way. Moreover, your suggestion that restarting the open warfare in the Korean conflict is not logical or practical considering the reality of the risk involved at this time. It's just that simple.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Bull.   4/28/2010 10:15:10 AM
Evidently you cannot stand to be wrong.

Well to quote Shakespeare: "The past is prologue."
 
And your past track record on matters political, military, and naval just proves that you cannot make the connections, even when spelled out for you in simple terms. 
 
So you will be condemned by your own history to repeat and repeat and repeat........
 
Can't change or adapt or avoid or learn.
 
H.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics